July 24, 2012

"Restaurants serve mega-portions, sodas are bigger. And have you been on a NYC subway lately? The number of people taking up two seats has increased exponentially. There's nothing patriotic about eating and drinking yourself sick, but our cars and toasters have that same look. America the insatiable. And those of us lucky enough to have health insurance are paying the brunt of other people's overindulgence."

A comment on a NYT column about the proposed NYC ban on extra-large sodas. The column takes the attitude of mocking the "American soft-drink industry" for making "appeals to patriotism" in its lobbying against the ban. The column sounds the anti-business and pro-good-health themes the NYT typically finds fit to print. The comment reveals the dark side of those themes: lowly disgust for citizens with obesity and an irrational fear that the overweight are intruding on the rest of us and draining us of our wealth.

198 comments:

Fuunt how those NYT moron's are against heavy people because they might become a burden on society but are adamant in support 'entitlements' for those who actually are being a burden on society, the democrat core of welfare moochers.

This is the essential sentiment. I don't want these people to be the way they are. Make them different

Ah, shut up. I feel that way about all sorts of people, and so do you. Liberals, for instance. Muslims. Those on intergenerational welfare. Career criminals. Politicians of all stripes. (Arguably they are a subset of 'career criminals') I could go on. I don't want those people to be the way they are, and neither do you.

Everybody in the world wants other people to be different from the way they are. The worst offenders in this regard, amusingly enough, are libertarians.

Cars look bigger because of safety standards. They have higher beltlines and more crush space than they did in the 1990s so that the driver and riders are more likely to survive a crash. But it's true, the style sucks.

I'm looking for another car now. Although my current 2010 Honda Civic is adequate, I'm getting tired of the manual shift (maybe not as much a control freak as I was when I was younger). But the 2012 Civic tested badly in Consumer Reports (!) so I'm looking for something else. On the short list: VW Golf. Can't think of what else to consider at that price range. I want a hatchback, and there aren't many out there.

"But even among developed countries, our food spending is ultra-low: People in most European countries spend over 10 percent of their incomes on food. In fact, Americans spend less on food than people in any other country in the world. Even we Americans didn't always expect our food to be so cheap, though: Back in 1963, when Molly Orshansky, an employee of the Social Security Administration, created the nation's first poverty threshold, she simply tripled the cost of the FDA's "thrifty" food plan, since at the time most families spent about a third of their incomes on food. So how'd we end up spending just a fraction of that four decades later?"

Q said Ah, shut up. I feel that way about all sorts of people, and so do you. Liberals, for instance. Muslims. Those on intergenerational welfare. Career criminals. Politicians of all stripes. (Arguably they are a subset of 'career criminals') I could go on. I don't want those people to be the way they are, and neither do you.

Everybody in the world wants other people to be different from the way they are. The worst offenders in this regard, amusingly enough, are libertarians.

Yes, true. Maybe you're just whining about the problem. I do it, too, as you rightly say. But lefties think there's something to be done. People can be molded into better humans! That's the Marxist philosophy.

Libertarians are the worst offenders? I think I'm pretty libertarian, though I'm registered as a Republican. I haven't seen a libertarian complaining about the way I or anyone else is. Just about what they do.

"Obesity in the United States is in part an economic issue, according to a review paper on the relationship between poverty and obesity published in the January 2004 edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The article suggests that the very low cost of energy-dense foods may be linked to rising obesity rates."

You'd be happy if someone else would come up with a law against those damned fat bastards, though?

Guess what, Q? I'm fat. It's my own fault. I love to eat and drink. I have trouble finding clothes to fit me. I ought to diet. Perhaps I will. Perhaps, if I get energetic, I'll start a "Fat Fuck" line of clothes for people like me.

Until such time, you can rationalize your disgust anyway you want; that telltale "but" is the giveaway sign of the totalitarian in embryo.

You'd be happy if someone else would come up with a law against those damned fat bastards, though?

That's a stupid response to somebody saying that they don't support laws against those dammed fat bastards.

I would be happy if self-indulgent Americans learned a little self-restraint. Those protruding bellies are part and parcel of the lack of responsibility in all aspects of American life. The sort of people who lack the self-control to eat a little less will never have the self-control to restrain government spending. It's all about immediate gratification.

Everything comes down to the character of the people. The fact that Americans are so fat is just one symptom of their general degeneracy.

Scott - Subarus are the greatest. I'm on my third. Comfortable, reliable, fantastic field of vision, very low maintenance even at high mileage. I'm a Forester fan but the Impreza is hatchbacky, I think. Try 'em.

Scott - Subarus are the greatest. I'm on my third. Comfortable, reliable, fantastic field of vision, very low maintenance even at high mileage. I'm a Forester fan but the Impreza is hatchbacky, I think. Try 'em.

I have also heard good things about Subarus. I will be in the market in a year or two (hopefully!). I think the Rav4's are cute, but I don't know much about them.

You don't think that consuming more calories than your body burns each day is the cause of obesity?

True, but grossly simplistic. It's not a simple math problem, because the things you eat change the way your body burns calories. And not everyone is the same. You should read Taubes book, it has a whole section on this.

The recession/depression will produce as one of its unintended side effects, a decline in the obesity rate.

I do not think so. I have noticed really super duper fat people that are apparently poor. Whole families. Beans. Starches. Carbs. Lots and lots of carbs. I see them walking sometimes together and I do marvel and I'm standing there wondering, "shouldn't you be eating -- what? -- fifteen burritos or something," continuously to keep up that bulk? That big should be fed continuously, no?

Perfectly silly; there are cars of all types out there if you go do more than one dealer. Moreover, you don't have to buy big gulps, you can forgo soda altogether. When eating, you have choice as well.

Q said...You'd be happy if someone else would come up with a law against those damned fat bastards, though?

That's a stupid response to somebody saying that they don't support laws against those dammed fat bastards.

I would be happy if self-indulgent Americans learned a little self-restraint. Those protruding bellies are part and parcel of the lack of responsibility in all aspects of American life. The sort of people who lack the self-control to eat a little less will never have the self-control to restrain government spending. It's all about immediate gratification.

Everything comes down to the character of the people. The fact that Americans are so fat is just one symptom of their general degeneracy.

The notion that eating carbs makes people fat is just idiotic. For most of the past two thousand years the bulk of the human race has lived mostly on carbs. Chinese peasants lived on rice. European peasants lived on bread and potatoes. This was the case up until very recently. And those Chinese and European peasants were not fat.

The role of sugar is a different one. But this crap about how eating bread, rice, and spuds makes you obese is just moronic. It's how much of them you eat and how much exercise you get which determines whether you'll gain additional fat cells.

I'm not in favor of obesity, exhaust fumes, or automatic weapons in the hand of maniacs. It says something about the credibility and sanctimony of liberals that they frame these issues in such a way that they have lost the argument.

The commenter, like many New York trendy types, equates being overweight with being "old" like his/her parents. If one stays thin, or so they believe, one can drop dead at 95 without ever having become "old" like their parents.

Scott - Subarus are the greatest. I'm on my third. Comfortable, reliable, fantastic field of vision, very low maintenance even at high mileage. I'm a Forester fan but the Impreza is hatchbacky, I think. Try 'em.

I do appreciate that at least this horrible ban is directed at excess carbohydrates which do in fact cause obesity. Now if they could just lose the bad science trans fat ban, they would be headed somewhere.

My parents grew up in the Depression. My mother witnessed hunger; my father occasionally lived it. Their kids, like others in the 50's, were urged to clean their plates, not knowing what was behind the exhortation. We don't have starving people today but we do have malnourished people. If you don't like it - tighten up on what you are allowed to buy under the Food Stamp program. When it becomes a discretionary expenditure of welfare bucks, then it may be throttled back some. If you are too weak to regulate your own intake of questionable foods, you can always move to NYC and have the Nanny take care of the decision for you.

there are cars of all types out there if you go do more than one dealer.

We have/buy vehicles that are USABLE for us. That eliminates anything subcompact, completely eliminates any type of hybrid or electric vehicle, anything not 4x4 or all wheel drive. GPS is useless for us, as are many of the bells and whistles. The less computing powered crappola on the vehicle the better.

We need large carrying capacity (either a pickup or good sized SUV), good towing power, ability to drive LONG LONG distances, in the snow or in the scorching heat. High enough on the road to see the deer, antelope and cattle in the distance. Sturdy front end and/or a grill guard for the same critters as above.

So you can take your little shoebox sized, hybrid, green weenie plastic pieces of crap and shove them where the sun don't shine.

I'm surprised by the general sentiment in this thread. Aren't conservatives supposed to be about personal responsibility? Most fat people are fat because they eat poorly and don't exercise. I don't think the government should regulate the size of sodas, but I do think private industry should start incentivizing weight loss. I have frequently been next to people on planes and trains who really should have been required to buy two seats. Sorry, Ann, but the overweight are intruding on the rest of us -- literally.

You have no evidence of that. All one can honestly say is that they may be correlated. There is NO evidence they are additive or multiplicative.

In fact, I can easily posit a person with VERY little money, but eating mostly inexpensive carbs. They will be fat.

You have no evidence of that.

Ever since humans stopped being hunter-gatherers and turned to agriculture several thousand years ago, the great majority of people have lived on inexpensive carbs. And they were not fat. Many people in the world still live on that diet. They are not fat.

Yep :-D And this is why the green energy revolution, hybrid cars, tiny apartment living, socially controlled lifestyles and other idiocy thought up in think tanks in Washington DC and San Francisco by people who have never left their cloistered environment, will never come to fruition nationwide. We aren't buying it....literally....and it just does not work.

"Ever since humans stopped being hunter-gatherers and turned to agriculture several thousand years ago, the great majority of people have lived on inexpensive carbs. And they were not fat. Many people in the world still live on that diet. They are not fat."

They aren't fat because they're -poor-.

So while they eat primarily carbs they are in fact diet restricted because of poverty. But when poverty isn't an issue that same diet will cause problems.

Aren't conservatives supposed to be about personal responsibility? .... I have frequently been next to people on planes and trains who really should have been required to buy two seats

Well, that is one way to enforce personal responsibility. If you are so fat that it takes two seats to sit your ass into, then you pay double. Don't like it....don't be so fat. And don't expect everyone to create special accommodations for your gigantic bulky body.

Same thing goes for the personal responsibility of smoking etc for health care. Smoked, drank, did drugs and ate yourself into poor health? Then you should have to pay MORE for your health insurance or if you are so bad....tuff shit. You don't get any health insurance and you pay for your health CARE on your own instead of forcing the rest of us to subsidize your crappy lifestyle.....Thanks to OBAMACARE, which has removed any personal responsibility from the equation.

A recent natural experiment proves my point, and led some researchers to laud the approach of weight loss through poverty.

Researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Cienfuegos, Cuba and Loyola University studied the effects of the economic crisis of Cuba in 1989-2000.

Because of the fall of the USSR, they lost Soviet money ($5B annually), and the remainder of their economy being a typical socialist hole, people began to starve. Calorie intake fell from 2,899 kcal in 1988 to 1,863 kcal in 1993. Food intake thus dropped below nutritional requirements.

In the economic crisis, cars (and gas) became unaffordable, and lacking a viable public transport system, bicycles and walking became the primary means of transportation. Obesity prevalence decreased from 14.3% in 1991 to 7.2% in 1995.

Following this, there were substantial declines in cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and all-cause mortality. As a result, obesity declined, as did deaths attributed to diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke.

The researchers neglected to report (or were unaware of) an epidemic of blindness and peripheral neuropathy due to a lack of vitamins, affecting over 33,000 people.

The paper drew this conclusion from the mass near-starvation induced by poverty:

"Population-wide approaches designed to reduce caloric intake and increase physical activity, without affecting nutritional sufficiency, might be best suited for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and diabetes."

A lot of people here seem to have bought into the left wing mindset: You either (A) pass a law, or (B) do nothing at all

Excuse me, Q, but who came in here sneering I am tired of Americans being so damned fat, then followed it up with the notion that because we're a nation of fat fucks, we'll never be able to get the national budget under control?

You're the one who can't stand the sight of fat people. You're the one demanding we be as outraged as you are. Apparently, because we're not joining in your Emmanuel Goldstein moment, we're fans of "doing nothing at all."

Were I a Freudian, I'd suspect there's a lot more pissing you off than just the sight of fat people.

Paul - glad somebody got the reference! If only I were clever with my hands. . .

"A lot of people here seem to have bought into the left wing mindset: You either (A) pass a law, or (B) do nothing at all"

Excuse me, Q, but who came in here sneering I am tired of Americans being so damned fat, then followed it up with the notion that because we're a nation of fat fucks, we'll never be able to get the national budget under control?

Excuse me, but I'm not seeing the connection between what I wrote, and what you wrote in response.

If I said "There should be a law requiring all Americans to only vote for politicians who will get the budget under control!", you'd have a point. But I didn't, and you don't.

Americas are a self-indulgent people who like to spoil themselves. That can manifest itself as a desire for an extra slice of cheesecake, or a McMansion, or it can manifest itself as a desire for more government goodies which we don't have to pay for.

The cardinal rule of a representative democracy is that the people must be capable of exercising self-restraint.

You're the one who can't stand the sight of fat people.

What was the point of writing that? It's false by the way, and I never said it. But if it were correct it would be merely stating a fact.

Let's set aside the fact that the "Emmanuel Goldstein" reaction would be to terrorize and kill people and that I have rejected such tactics. Your emotions seem to have gotten the better of you. There's more of that lack of self-control I'm talking about ...

Why don't you tell me what you suggest be done since you reject "doing nothing at all"?

Shanna, I am just a psychologist, so all my nutritional info is second hand from reading Traubes, a couple of the original studies, and Atkins. Their research has shown that some people react to high carb diet by fattening. It is a metabolic process that is the same as the one animals go through as they fatten for the winter. The body takes excess carbs and stores them as fat.

This is in contrast to the other prominent metabolic process, lypolisis (sp??) in which the body burns fat for energy. When people are in the fattening metabolism, extra fats are deposited as plaque.

When people are burning fat for energy, extra dietary fat is urinated out of the body. Lots of good healthy fats are needed in order for the body to switch metabolic activity, so all fats are helpful in this regard. And if the body is not fattening, then there is no deposit of plaque.

This is behaviorally supported by the native Alaskan folks who eat blubber and have no problems with obesity or heart issues. Until they leave that diet and get fat like the rest of us.

So trans-fats are not a problem for people who are burning fats, only people who are depositing fats because they are eating too many carbs.

Citation please. Do you have any scientific reason to believe this? And do we have any research to help us accept your claim? Or should we just take your presenting them in an absolutistic, blowhard fashion as indicative of their worth?

So you didn't. You did write the fact that Americans are so fat is just one symptom of their general degeneracy. Not exactly a hail-fellow-well-met to the local lardass.

The "Emmanuel Goldstein" reference was to 1984's Two Minute Hate. I presumed you'd be familiar with the allusion.

Why don't you tell me what you suggest should be done?

Frankly, my dear, it's like smoking. If, after all these years of being told that eating useless calories, sugary drinks and processed fast food on a regular basis while being sedentary, you still don't know that eating less and exercising is good for you, there's nothing that can be done.

What do you want? Mandatory fat camps? Employment opportunities to be restricted based on BMI? Outright banning of portion sizes or foodstuffs?

My emotions aren't getting the better of me at all. All I'm seeing from you is a subtext of I'm sick of seeing so many fat people. They're fat because they're lazy pig degenerates. I don't like them. Why can't we do something about them?

Don't blame me because you came off as a humorless scold. It might surprise you to know I agree with you that too many Americans are obese and that it isn't good for us. But I'm not about to look for some stick to force them to eat carrots, either.

And now, I'm off. Time to go home and make a big pan of fried chicken. Nom nom nom.

You did write the fact that Americans are so fat is just one symptom of their general degeneracy. Not exactly a hail-fellow-well-met to the local lardass.

I never said that it was a "hail-fellow-well-met to the local lardass". If you are capable of making any non-strawman arguments, please do so.

Frankly, my dear, it's like smoking. If, after all these years of being told that eating useless calories, sugary drinks and processed fast food on a regular basis while being sedentary, you still don't know that eating less and exercising is good for you, there's nothing that can be done.

Ah. So, after getting really pissy at me for suggesting that you favor doing nothing at all .. ("Apparently, because we're not joining in your Emmanuel Goldstein moment, we're fans of "doing nothing at all" ) .. you now are telling that you believe in doing ... nothing at all.

Glad we cleared that up.

What do you want? Mandatory fat camps?

You seem to be determined to prove my earlier claim that "A lot of people here seem to have bought into the left wing mindset: You either (A) pass a law, or (B) do nothing at all"

Most of human existence has nothing to do with either government passing laws or self-actualizing individuals self-actualizing themselves.

So trans-fats are not a problem for people who are burning fats, only people who are depositing fats because they are eating too many carbs.

I read Good Calories Bad Calories in it's entirety. I do not remember a chapter on 'trans' fats, just fats in general particularly animal fats. Trans fats are man made and it's my understanding that they have been linked to cancer in reputable studies. I would be interested in reading any research that says otherwise.

Which, according to Tabues, should have resulted in an epidemic of obesity in Cuba.

Spoken like someone who has never read him. I’m pretty sure there was a whole chapter on starvation and hunger. You have not clue one what you’re talking about.

The main problem with high protein high fat low carb or no carb diets is that over a long enough time they will put a strain on the kidneys and may lead to kidney failure and a condition called ketosis which I really don't understand but is pretty darn serious as it can lead to other organs failing.

You mean, other than the scientific fact that that most of the worlds population lives on carbs at present without getting fat? And the scientific fact that Americans in the not very distant past lived on carbs without getting fat?

And the scientific fact that Americans in the not very distant past lived on carbs without getting fat?

Americans used to eat awesome breakfasts full of bacon, cook with lard constantly, etc…so I’m not sure where you’re getting the ‘scientific fact’ that they lived on carbs. What actually happened is the government said ‘OMG fat is evil stop eating it!’ and Americans for the part said ‘ok’ and cut way back. And got fatter. Because the advice was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Had you lived in 1908, you would have eaten potatoes, of some variety, at least once a day.

In the 1900s, bread-making was part of the daily routine in American households. Whole grain cereals were year-round breakfast staples.

Americans of that era, unaware that too much of a good thing could be harmful, were much taken with sweets. In 1908, you would have treated your family to homemade muffins, cakes and pies, or bought them at the local bakery.

In the i9th century poor farm workers across Europe lived almost entirely on bread and potatoes. (This lead to a big famine in Ireland when the potato crop failed) But there are no accounts from the time mentioning the remarkable obesity of these people.

There is not one shred of evidence that eating rice, grains, or potatoes makes people fat, other than the normal sense that eating too much of any food makes you fat.

Ever since the dawn of the "agricultural revolution" when people learned to raise crops, the bulk of the human diet has been made up of those crops - and they are carbohydrates.

If this "carbs=poison" narrative were true, it would mean that we've been poisoning ourselves for the past ten thousand years or so.

Too bad sexual incontinence isn't accompanied by a physical sign the way gluttony is. Then we could easily identify the people who are costing us money for STD treatment and AIDS research and who are depriving us of the means of keeping our entitlements solvent by aborting future taxpayers.

Q, what if tomorrow Harvard Medical School comes up with the obesity gene, and says that it accounts for 80% of obesity in America?

Would you amend your comment in that case? or are you certain they won't do that?

I am 100% certain that they won't do that.

Don't you think it's a little odd that this "obesity gene" exists only "in America"?

Everything we know about genetics tells us such a result is impossible. If an "obesity gene" exists in America it should be widespread in Europe, the recent origin point for the majority of Americans. And yet, you just don't the level of obesity in Europe that you do in America.

"You are contradicting yourself. According to you it is not what they are eating which is making them fat, it is that they are eating too much of it. The lack of calorie restriction is their problem."

In what way am I contradicting myself? You stated that people have essentially evolved to live on a carb heavy/low protein diet by using the example that people on such diets are thing.

I pointed out that this is a complete fallacy and that reason why such people are thin are because they are too poor to afford a better more protein rich diet. So the proof of your example, the slenderness of carb eaters, is another example of correlation vs causation.

And how do I know this? Because I grew up in a very poor and very very rural village in South Korea in the early 1960's and the primary component of my daily food was rice, some pickled vegetables and maybe a little fish.

The precise diet you extol. And I can tell you that we didn't eat that diet because we wanted to.

From a very basic, very simple point of view, weight gain/loss is a function of calories ingested vs calories consumed via metabolism and exercise.

If you don't get enough calories, you will starve, you will lose weight.

No one can/should dispute this.

The problem may be defining what "enough calories" is.

Regardless, input calories and output exercise is only 2 parts of the equation. A 3rd is metabolism. A 4th is hunger/satisfaction.

Our understanding of how to adjust metabolism is rudimentary at best.

Our understanding of hunger is even worse.

For instance, some foods do not quench hunger, in the same way that some drinks do not quench thirst.

So eating those types of foods will leave you ingesting more calories to feel full.

It only makes sense, then, that having cheap, plentiful forms of that food will make you fat. Because, remember, doing something as minor as one extra glass of fruit juice per day will make you gain 10 pounds.

Carbohydrates digest quickly and let you feel hungry more quickly, and so appear to be unhelpful for staying thin.

So when poor Chinese people eat a high carb, low fat diet and stay thin, you cannot equate that to an American eating a high carb, low fat diet, because the American must exercise willpower to avoid eating fat/protein, and must be fully aware of every bit of fat they eat. Just not paying attention can add 100 calories/day to the American's diet that the poor Chinese cannot ever choose to add.100 calories/day equals 35k extra calories/year, which is 10 extra pounds right there!

If carbohydrates depress metabolism, as well, that just makes things worse. Only a few moments of thought should make it clear that if your body (whether at rest or exercising) burns just one less calorie/hour, you will end up much fatter than if you burn one extra calorie per hour.

One thing that seems for sure: plentiful, cheap carbs AND protein AND fat makes it very easy to gain weight, very difficult to lose weight, and very difficult to keep it off.

Bottom line: the human body has many mechanisms and methods to gain weight in surplus times to preserve life in lean times. Certain foods can support those mechanisms or weaken them. The more we understand those mechanisms, the easier it will be to lose weight and maintain a lower weight.

"You mean, other than the scientific fact that that most of the worlds population lives on carbs at present without getting fat? And the scientific fact that Americans in the not very distant past lived on carbs without getting fat?"

Ok now you need to CITE a source. Because that is just utter bullshit.

The primary component of the American diet for about 200 years was meat not carbs. So you're going to assert something different then you need to provide the evidence for it.

This isn't even remotely true. Urine consists of waste products as a result of metabolic processes; i.e. burning energy.

The overwhelming evidence is that it ultimately comes down to calories and affluent people, especially Americans, simply eat more. It's not a lot more, but enough to make a difference over time. (Americans eat on average about 200 more calories a day now than in 1975.)

The overwhelming evidence is that if you consume more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. The opposite is also true.

It's also very apparent that Americans drink more soda that ever before and that this consumption directly correlates with the increase of obesity. Is it a primary cause? I don't know, but the evidence points in that direction. (Reduction in smoking has also had an effect. I believe an emphasis in aerobic vs. resistance exercise has had an effect as has the war on dietary fat, resulting in using sugar to make food taste palatable.)

Puritanism has never died out, especially in this country. The problem is, political correctness has severely limited the targets of the puritan's self righteous meddling. I think we're left with only fat people and smokers to bear the entire pent up rage of our bourgeois Savonarolas.

"There's nothing patriotic about eating and drinking yourself sick, but our cars and toasters have that same look. America the insatiable. And those of us lucky enough to have health insurance are paying the brunt of other people's overindulgence."

Interesting comparison to AIDS isn't it? Of course anyone writing this about AIDS would only appear in the NYT under attack.

The primary component of the American diet for about 200 years was meat not carbs.

Not true.

Do just a little reading. Yes, Americans historically ate more meat than many other cultures (and drank more until prohibition), but it was only part of a broader diet.

What do you think are in bread and potatoes, which were, and are, a staple of the American diet? And corn, peas, asparagus, tomatoes, honey...? Refined table sugar isn't a modern invention, neither is corn syrup. (I was surprised to find that marshmallows, which I don't like, were invented in 1850!)

The primary component of the American diet for about 200 years was meat not carbs.

I've already provided a cite for saying that Americans lived mostly on carbs. A diet mostly of meat is an unhealthy diet.

You say that a protein rich diet makes people big and strong. It does, within reason. But American soldiers in WWI and WWII were a scrawny bunch. In fact the main reason why the government started issuing dietary guidelines was that they wanted bigger, stronger American soldiers.

I'm curious about why somebody who grew up in Korea is attempting to lecture me about some obscure details of American and European history.

Q also fails to comprehend that obesity has exploded with HFCS explosion in everything. Coincidence? I think not.

Q has not failed to comprehend that. Q thinks that it is perfectly possible that HFCS is at least part of the reason why Americans are more obese than other people.

But Q is also aware that high fructose corn syrup has nothing to do with a discussion of whether eating bread and potatoes messes up your metabolism. By "bread" Q means normal bread, not bread with HFCS in it as commonly eaten in the US.

""irrational fear that the overweight are intruding on the rest of us and draining us of our wealth"

I don't think fatties are draining my wealth but they will be when their health issues hit our collective pockets. But they are definitely intruding. Fatties spill over into my space on airplanes, they waddle slowly in front of me, they move three and four abreast wherever they are.

This crap about insulin resistance and Gary Taubes is hilarious. Why is this a problem only on this part of this continent? Why is this problem not in Asia, the sub-continent, South America? Why is it not a problem in Canada? In Mexico? I have been to all of these place and I can assure you I could gain a hundred pounds in any of them without any insulin resistance, without any problem whatsoever.

Well, during, or as a result of, but the point is valid and missed. Carbs are not bad for you. Eating carbs at the expense of fats is (which is what has happened. Protein consumption as a percentage of diet has increased slightly in the past past 40 years.)

There are many natural foods with high concentrations of fructose to sucrose than HFCS. However, what HFCS did was make sweeteners a helluva lot cheaper on a massive scale. (There is some evidence that this increase in overall fructose consumption has led to an increase in gout, but that would have happened with current consumption rates even if cane/beet sugar were used.)

Incidentally, drinking soda flavored with cane or beet sugar isn't a big improvement and may, strictly speaking, not be one at all (considering that HFCS-42 actually has less fructose than cane/beet sugar.) I'm with Alex on this one; not drinking soda may be the healthiest single thing someone can do.

I did NOT say our ancestors ate Atkins. I said that when Fat was demonized, we started eating more carbs. This is a fact. And we got fatter at the same time.

I'm saying it's possible those things are related. I'm saying it was a very bad idea when government scientists started telling us what to eat since most of their advice was wrong. It continues to be wrong.

I'm also saying that your cite absolutely does NOT say 'americans lived mostly on carbs' as you claimed. It says they ate some carbs, and lots of meat, milk, and vegetables.

Your interpretation of the information at the link is ... peculiar.

Fruits and VegetablesBack in the day, fresh markets were not as easily accessible as they are now. The typical family ate home-grown, seasonal fruits and vegetables, unless they had the foresight to "put up" some of their previous year's crop. Had you lived in 1908, you would have eaten potatoes, of some variety, at least once a day. You might also have enjoyed tomatoes, lettuce, carrots, turnips, beets or asparagus. Fruits were less abundant in many areas of the country. Apples, cherries, plums, pears, melons and citrus fruits were, generally, reserved for breakfast and desserts.

Note that potatoes (eaten at least once a day) are included here under "Fruits and Vegetables".

GrainsIn the 1900s, bread-making was part of the daily routine in American households. Whole grain cereals were year-round breakfast staples.

I'm just not seeing the "low-carb" part of all this.

Milk and Dairy FoodsMilk and dairy foods weren't the focus of the American diet circa 1908, as it was difficult to prevent spoilage. It wasn't until the 1930s that the average American family owned an electric refrigerator. Until then, you stored cold foods, outside, in a well or spring house, or indoors in an "icebox" -- basically, a cabinet filled with manufactured ice. You used canned milk, rather than fresh, for cooking.

Carbs, in the form of grains and potatoes, formed the basis of the American diet.

Carbs, in the form of grains and potatoes, formed the basis of the American diet.

It says that absolutley no where in that article. If you follow one of the citations, their is a nifty chart that shows that vegetables were at the top, followed by milk/milk productsgrains, meat and fruit.

Their are a lot more details, but nothing you cited says 'grains and potatoes' were the basis of the diet. It just says we ate them. Which is true.

Alex said... Q also fails to comprehend that obesity has exploded with HFCS explosion in everything. Coincidence? I think not.

7/24/12 2:55 PM

Blame Fidel Castro. Before Castro what is currently being used as a sweetener, HFCS was cane sugar. Cuban cane sugar.

Micheal: seriously unless you actually are in the top 1% you don't pay squat in taxes or subsidies for anyone. It's jerks like you that make we wish the airlines were regulated again like in early 70's so people like you that used to ride busses will go back to riding busses and people like me than can afford air tickets can get what used be offered in coach, bigger, wider seats with legroom and service and not have to sit next to jerks like you.

Q, you are just as arrogant and insufferable an ass as your Star Trek namesake.

Of course mid 19th century Irish subsistence farmers were living the life of Reilly, why they could work like donkey's all day long, all that physical exercise and eat potatoes to their hearts content and never get fat. Just like a good portion of the third world lives today, lots of hard physical work and a relatively low amount of daily caloric consumption. I f that is the lifestyle you wish for yourself, go for it, but honestly no one gives a crap on what you think or your snarkiness.

Cuba bob. Notwithstanding your country of origin you are a bit of a presumptive prick. I ride first class, I am in the one percent and I dont like fatties even if they have bespoke suits. Even in first class they drip onto my side. I pay enough in taxes to fatten legions. So fuck off dipshit.

Of course mid 19th century Irish subsistence farmers were living the life of Reilly, why they could work like donkey's all day long, all that physical exercise and eat potatoes to their hearts content and never get fat. Just like a good portion of the third world lives today, lots of hard physical work and a relatively low amount of daily caloric consumption. I f that is the lifestyle you wish for yourself, go for it, but honestly no one gives a crap on what you think or your snarkiness.

The point, which I apparently need to spell pout for you slowly and with visual aids, is that people get fat when calories in > calories out.

Or, as you put it without grasping what was going on, "lots of hard physical work and a relatively low amount of daily caloric consumption".

There is nothing inherently wrong with eating lots of potatoes, or lots of most things, provided you balance the calories you take in from potatoes with the amount of calories you expend each day.

Though you are too dumb to realize it, you were actually agreeing with my point.

It says that absolutley no where in that article. If you follow one of the citations, their is a nifty chart that shows that vegetables were at the top,

Jesus Christ, you are stupid! Or stubborn, perhaps.

I already pointed out to you that the single most common vegetable eaten was potatoes. That's "carbs" to you.

The typical family ate home-grown, seasonal fruits and vegetables, unless they had the foresight to "put up" some of their previous year's crop. Had you lived in 1908, you would have eaten potatoes, of some variety, at least once a day. You might also have enjoyed tomatoes, lettuce, carrots, turnips, beets or asparagus

Carbs, you fool. Carbs! What do you think is in potatoes and turnips and beets and carrots? Carbohydrates!

"No, they ate vegetables, not carbs!"

Why not just walk around with a big sign on your back saying "Kick me, I'm stupid"?

I'm tired of having to wait 3x as long to make a safe left turn because I don't drive an SUV. :-) (Really.)

And I'm tired of cars being UGLY. They've looked like bloated tin cans for a while. I found an aerodynamic looking one, but it took a while, and it was the only one at any price range in a very popular line. Engineers love it.

Soft drinks: it's just such a silly law. What about people who want to buy in bulk? When I drank soft drinks in student years, I'd get a huge one every time I ordered a pizza and keep it in the mini fridge.

Fat Americans; I honestly think it's often a sign of having copious minor hoices in the areas that don't count (food, media, consumer goods) and not so much choice in the areas that do (zip code, housing, job/career, healthcare, fuel costs, *government*).

So if you want to help, amp up the economy with real jobs, so people can have real lives.

Fat and protein are metabolized differently than carbs. This is basic knowledge. What diet do diabetics eat, why? What does carb injestion do to blood sugar and insulin levels? Why is not good to have high levels of circulating insulin?

If one has Metabolic Syndrome they have insulin resistance, high lipids, hypertension, that's just for starters.

Michael, if you or any human gained 100, you would become insulin resistant. Endocrinologists are beginning to call fat an endocrine organ, fat releases substances that can and will affect your health.

That layer of fat that obese humans carry, especially the internal fat attached to organs, is NOT inert.

Michael said... Cuba bob. Notwithstanding your country of origin you are a bit of a presumptive prick. I ride first class, I am in the one percent and I dont like fatties even if they have bespoke suits. Even in first class they drip onto my side. I pay enough in taxes to fatten legions. So fuck off dipshit.

7/24/12 4:44 PM

Good for you that you are in the top one percent. I don't know what airlines you fly on that you have the problems you mention,I somehow don't have that problem when I fly first class but that is your problem, not mine. As for dipshit and prick, great job of self description.

Q you are a legend in your own mind, elswhere not so much. Poor people eat what they because SURPRISE! they are poor. Not necessarily because thats what they like. So what's your point (besides beclowing yourself) that 19th century Irish poor were slim because they worked like farm animals and ate even less because that is all they could afford? Keep digging.